Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Curious if there is any distinction in corporate practice b/w these three and the differences in culture and work environment in general. I assume hours at all three are similar, but Chambers has STB pegged at having a "bare minimum" of 1800 hours billed with 2100 as the norm. I assume Cleary is about the same, with S&C quite a bit higher?

S&C > Simpson > Cleary in terms of quality of the corporate group (going by Chambers rankings). S&C probably has the best full-service corporate group of any firm right now, full-stop.

From the perspective of an associate, S&C has some historical prestige edge. Cleary, for example, was not a top corporate group in the early 1990s. Besides this, it's not clear there is any substantive difference in exit options or quality of work between these firms.

In terms of hours, practice group choice will have more of an impact than firm choice.

Anonymous User wrote:S&C > Simpson > Cleary in terms of quality of the corporate group (going by Chambers rankings). S&C probably has the best full-service corporate group of any firm right now, full-stop.

From the perspective of an associate, S&C has some historical prestige edge. Cleary, for example, was not a top corporate group in the early 1990s. Besides this, it's not clear there is any substantive difference in exit options or quality of work between these firms.

In terms of hours, practice group choice will have more of an impact than firm choice.

I'd base the decision more on culture/fit.

Vault and Chambers seem to suggest Skadden has the best full-service corporate group.

I'll steal some of Rayiner's wisdom from a different thread, some of which is relevant ITT:

rayiner wrote:There are 3 core areas that form the bread and butter of NYC corporate practice. Chambers calls them: banking/finance, corporate M&A, and capital markets. Cravath and Simpson are Band 1 in all three. DPW and S&C are Band 1 in two of the three. Skadden and Cleary are Band 1 in one of the three. Weil is not Band 1 in any of the three. If we were just measuring NYC corporate practices, flipping Simpson and Skadden in the Vault rankings would probably yield the best ordering for the "V5".

That said, I disagree that this really matters to associates. I think Cravath, S&C, DPW, and STB are better as firms for the areas within the scope of their practice than Skadden, but that's information more relevant to managing partners than associates. I think for associates, the breadth of good practice groups, the geographic reach, and the great name recognition (for a law firm, anyway) are more pertinent.

JusticeHarlan wrote:I'll steal some of Rayiner's wisdom from a different thread, some of which is relevant ITT:

rayiner wrote:There are 3 core areas that form the bread and butter of NYC corporate practice. Chambers calls them: banking/finance, corporate M&A, and capital markets. Cravath and Simpson are Band 1 in all three. DPW and S&C are Band 1 in two of the three. Skadden and Cleary are Band 1 in one of the three. Weil is not Band 1 in any of the three. If we were just measuring NYC corporate practices, flipping Simpson and Skadden in the Vault rankings would probably yield the best ordering for the "V5".

That said, I disagree that this really matters to associates. I think Cravath, S&C, DPW, and STB are better as firms for the areas within the scope of their practice than Skadden, but that's information more relevant to managing partners than associates. I think for associates, the breadth of good practice groups, the geographic reach, and the great name recognition (for a law firm, anyway) are more pertinent.

For NYC Corporate/M&A why are you looking at Chambers' nationwide rankings? Look to the New York rankings instead.

JusticeHarlan wrote:I'll steal some of Rayiner's wisdom from a different thread, some of which is relevant ITT:

rayiner wrote:There are 3 core areas that form the bread and butter of NYC corporate practice. Chambers calls them: banking/finance, corporate M&A, and capital markets. Cravath and Simpson are Band 1 in all three. DPW and S&C are Band 1 in two of the three. Skadden and Cleary are Band 1 in one of the three. Weil is not Band 1 in any of the three. If we were just measuring NYC corporate practices, flipping Simpson and Skadden in the Vault rankings would probably yield the best ordering for the "V5".

That said, I disagree that this really matters to associates. I think Cravath, S&C, DPW, and STB are better as firms for the areas within the scope of their practice than Skadden, but that's information more relevant to managing partners than associates. I think for associates, the breadth of good practice groups, the geographic reach, and the great name recognition (for a law firm, anyway) are more pertinent.

For NYC Corporate/M&A why are you looking at Chambers' nationwide rankings? Look to the New York rankings instead.

JusticeHarlan wrote:I'll steal some of Rayiner's wisdom from a different thread, some of which is relevant ITT:

rayiner wrote:There are 3 core areas that form the bread and butter of NYC corporate practice. Chambers calls them: banking/finance, corporate M&A, and capital markets. Cravath and Simpson are Band 1 in all three. DPW and S&C are Band 1 in two of the three. Skadden and Cleary are Band 1 in one of the three. Weil is not Band 1 in any of the three. If we were just measuring NYC corporate practices, flipping Simpson and Skadden in the Vault rankings would probably yield the best ordering for the "V5".

That said, I disagree that this really matters to associates. I think Cravath, S&C, DPW, and STB are better as firms for the areas within the scope of their practice than Skadden, but that's information more relevant to managing partners than associates. I think for associates, the breadth of good practice groups, the geographic reach, and the great name recognition (for a law firm, anyway) are more pertinent.

For NYC Corporate/M&A why are you looking at Chambers' nationwide rankings? Look to the New York rankings instead.

Because they handle work nationwide.

I understand your direction with this... but the Chambers rankings for NY actually takes into account the work the NY office handles nationwide. If you read the descriptions of NY rankings of firms, they are very cognizant of firms with large clients outside of NY.

What I'm trying to say is, if OP is truly interested in getting a good comparison of the NY offices of these elite firms, they should put more weight on what Chambers says about their NY practices (where possible) rather than the "Nationwide" rankings.

The difference in the end is probably not enormous, but I think it paints a more accurate picture.